the bombing suspect wasn't read his miranda rights immediately because the justice dept/obama/cops invoked the public safety exemption. this is why: ____________________________ The law offers some flexibility, with what’s known as the “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule. It stems from a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Queens man charged with criminal gun possession. A witness told police the man raped her and had a gun. When they found him at an A&P supermarket, he had an empty shoulder holster. An officer, after handcuffing him, asked him where the gun was. The man gestured toward a stack of liquid-soap cartons, where police found a loaded revolver. Lower courts tossed the evidence because the man was wasn’t read his rights before handcuffed and questioned. The Supreme Court disagreed, articulating a ‘public safety’ exception. The FBI considers the exception to be a “powerful tool with a modern application for law enforcement,” wrote Carl Benoit, a legal instructor at the FBI Academy in a law enforcement bulletin. He wrote: When police officers are confronted by a concern for public safety, Miranda warnings need not be provided prior to asking questions directed at neutralizing an imminent threat, and voluntary statements made in response to such narrowly tailored questions can be admitted at trial. The circumstances with Mr. Tsarnaev are obviously very different. But Mr. Wittes said the Quarles case offers some flexibility, particularly since the suspect could be carrying a bomb. Says Mr. Wittes: “You do have under ‘Quarles’ some period of time at least to make sure there aren’t other accomplices running around, and to make sure that if there is a foreign connection, that this isn’t part of some unfolding plot of attacks.” _____________________ another win for obama!